I want to start this thread, and hope all will comment. My deepest sympathy to France, all those lives lost in Paris and the family of the victims. My prayers for all the hundreds wounded. This is once again a terror attack against the world and humanity. I feel as though it is 9/11 all over again. I feel deeply saddened by the way things are around the world. This attack on Paris by ICIS is horrific and CNN news stated 129 dead and 352 wounded, 80 in critical condition, When, oh when will these terrorists be abolished? I will continue to pray for those wounded and hope they will survive. I am so sad and feel for them in France.
I echo your sentiments Lisa. These scum need to be stopped and soon. 9/11 will live on in our memories, now we have 13/11 to add to that.
So sad that only US and France made the list.
Nice thread, bigotry is not going to solve the problem. To educate me, posters, what is France doing in Syria that has these terrorists so upset?
The attacks in the States along with those in France are related to our involvement in the region? What are we involved for, do you not think that an adversary is not going to use everything in its arsenal fair and foul to strike back?
I am not an apologist, it seems futile to expect to walk inbetween the rain drops during a torrential and not get wet. Our open societies are so vulnerable in this way, how do or can you crack down without changing the democratic tradition?
The terrorist groups will have to be destroyed as I think their anger goes beyond and perceived slight by Western powers in the Middle East. Their resistance to assimilation in Western Europe is a red flag. I cannot live with demands and intimidation and it will not stop, until they are stopped.
But it is possible to look as to the role of military on the part of the Western Powers in region. Is that interference justified?
Specifically regarding ISIS, I am thinking that your question of what France has done to become an ISIS target is not relevant to understanding why the attacks happened.
I say this because I am pondering a line of thought that, (again, specifically addressing ISIS), their attacks are not retaliation for any specific act(s) by any particular nation, but are aimed at Western culture and civilizations because in their radical view of Islam, the Western world is an infidel that must be converted or killed.
Whether correct or not, I make a distinction between Islam and the radical Islam of ISIS. ISIS is a radical Islam terrorist group. Their goal is the implementation of their radical Islamic views world-wide. I do not see them as fighting against an injury to their nation, they are not in the vein of French Resistance fighters fighting against a foreign conqueror, or the radical measures of the IRA against Britain, or even Hamas or Hezbollah.
I see ISIS' enemy as a culture, not a national entity. I think there can be no tolerance for ISIS, no matter what views of "Western" interventions or provocations are held. I say this because it appears that ISIS makes no distinction between Muslims and Western peoples. Their goal is to impose their beliefs on the world, not just Western cultures they see as decadent and immoral.
So what to do? Pull out all stops. Fight force with overwhelming force. There will be non-combatant and civilian tragedies. That is a tragic fact. ISIS will not be defeated by civilized control. I see it simply as needing to secure the good of the many at the cost of a the fewest.
I also think all civilized peoples must work to destroy ISIS - regardless of their religious beliefs
Liberty and freedom are not freely given, or casually held. If there must be martyrs let them be the innocents that die in the fight against radical Islamist tyrannies like ISIS.
In other words, tolerance and understanding be damned! Kill them all. No half-measures of containment or appeasement will stop their violent drive.
GA, I will have to concur with your statement. I don't see any alternative, we won't accept their concept of life under the burka. So, if, as you say, there can be no real provocation or prevention of same as a pallative solution, then we must let loose the dogs of war and destroy them as the alternative to their desire to destroy our culture, democratic traditions and pluralistic institutions.
Ha! "palliative," spending some more of that vocabulary allowance are we?
But, I will allow your redemption through the "dogs of war" metaphor.
Regarding intra-national struggles like Iraq or Afghanistan, I am against boots on the ground - not our fight any longer. But regarding ISIS, I would send in the whole damn Marine force, backed up by every other thing in our arsenal.
Ok, so I indulge myself on a Sunday afternoon.
The problem now is that the neo-cons and the militarists can now paint everything with the broad brush of containing the ISIS enemy as a cover for any sort military mischief in the region. How far can that go, is it 'mission morphing'?
The idea of all all encompassing enemy, just the sort that these people love. Just like it was during the 'good ole days' of international Communism. It would provide a perfect political cover as to why and what boots are on the ground and whether they in fact should be there.
That sounds like something you might say if Repubs held the reins. Is it still a concern with your guys at the controls?
I have a thought that Pres. Obama might surprise a lot of folks with his coming efforts regarding ISIS. I liked his support of the Kurds, and it seems to be making a difference. But the thought that military mischief might be a concern if our anti-ISIS efforts were ramped up wasn't one that popped into my mind.
The military-industrial complex has a life of its own, far beyond anything under the control of any current or recent commander and chief, in my opinion. It is just that the GOP has much less compunction about resisting that tendency than do the Democrats.
The President has spent a great deal of time informing the public of the idea of minimizing our military presence in some of the old hot spots. I will have to familiarize myself with the role of the Kurds in the struggle and how it was to our advantage to work with them. I know that the president is seeking moderates, walking the fine line between advocacy of Islamic terror and what we say is a change in the status quo for what we may consider problematic regimes, (Assad-Syria). That is no walk in the park. Is this middle way represented by the Kurds?
In regards to ISIS, "What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain — and we have contained them, They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they’ll come in, they’ll leave, but you don’t see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain. In fact the Islamic State continues to shrink in it’s scope of operations." -Obama
So really there is nothing to worry about. Just ask the Prez. Although there is something which is far more dangerous than terrorism.
"Let us not forget that these urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe." -Obama
July 7. September 11. Bali. Mumbai. Charlie Hebdo. Sousse, Tunisia. Westgate Mall, Kenya 13/11. Assassination of Royal Fusilier Lee Rigby. Martin Place, Sydney. Assassination of Sydney Police Accountant Curtis Cheng 2015. Stabbing of Endeavour Hills Police, September 2014. ANZAC Day Terrrorist Attack Plot 2015.
All of these atrocities have one common link. Islam.
That is all I have to say about that.
I'm sure you could say more.
Don't be shy, just tell us who you hate and how hatred will save the world.
You're right, hate isn't the answer - love is! We should try loving Islam to death!
That's how we defeated Nazism, right?
only heathens murder lol grow up, or don't, but don't project hatred on the God fearing souls whose only fear is Heaven , Christ be to all
And wasn't there an attack in Canada too a while back?
If you insist, Will.
I hate bleeding heart, left wing, liberal, terrorist sympathizers who would rather blame every one else than those who carry out these barbaric acts.
The terrorists are appalling barbarians, I think we all agree on that. But the solutions aren't simple.
Bringing in the anger doesn't help, as Afghanistan and Iraq wars showed, following the 9/11 attacks.
I am certainly no pacifist, but just condemning a world religion, or calling for the abolishment of terrorism is a road to nowhere.
I am more inclined to blame those people who create situations in which terrorist organisations like ISIS can thrive, leaving innocent populations, whether Muslim, Christian (or any other kind of human being) at their mercy.
Managing human affairs requires insight and understanding more than guns and killing.
And the French military attacked the Islamic state (killing innocent civilians that had nothing to do with their governments war), the Islamic military (such as it is) attacked the French civilians, now the French military will kill more Muslim civilians in retaliation, and down the road the Syrians and North Africans living in France will kill more French people that are not involved in their governments efforts, in retaliation for the retaliation.
Oh, sure, this problem should be over shortly.
And meantime children are growing up in nightmarish situations all over the Middle East. I'm sure most of them will be fine upstanding people as adults, but many will be very dangerous individuals.
The consequences of the Western worlds disastrous interventions will play out over many generations
I agree. I'd say the person most responsible for this is the one that invented the bloody religion.
Who would have thought that religious texts that encourage the killing of 'infidels' could make people kill 'infidels'.
You will need to go back to Abraham. He might be hard to find.
I think you have your so called "prophets" confused, Will. Mohammed railed against "infidels."
Even when dealing with dead prophets you manage to avoid blaming the one who actually founded Islam. I can't tell if that's a function of political correctness or natural obtuseness.
In either case, it's a rather pathetic cop-out.
Now, I myself love playing Devil's advocate, but I can't jump through mental hoops to somehow convince myself that the people who are blowing themselves up while yelling "God is great" are primarily doing it for reasons other than religion.
Most of the people suffering at the hands of ISIS are Muslim.
Most of the people fighting ISIS are Muslim.
Islamophobia is the single biggest threat to the West, right now, because terrorists have a simple game plan.
You attack your enemy in as vile a way as possible. Your enemy reacts and, ideally, carries out worse atrocities. The local population start siding with the terrorists and offer recruits and logistical support. Your terrorism becomes a widespread insurgency. Governments fall.
There is only one way to stop this happening. Use your head not your gut.
Alienating ordinary, decent Muslims by attacking their religion is the worst thing that you can do.
Oh most of them are fighting other Muslims? I guess that means that it has absolutely nothing to do with their religion *throws hands up in the air*
The more correct statement is "most of the people suffering at the hands of Islam are Muslim". I'll let you mull on that for a while.
I agree, that word is the single biggest threat to the West, because it shuts down any conversation with an accusation of bigotry. You don't like Islam? You're an Islamophobe. This buzzword makes it so fearing Islam is just as rational as fearing gays. It's not.
Are we carrying out atrocities worse than ISIS?
Funny you say that. Back in 09 a Hindu roommate and close friend of mine tried to show me disturbing facts relating to Muslims and Islamic beliefs. My gut instinct was to brand him a bigot against Muslims, an Islamophobe. I never said this to him of course. I simply nodded and showed a meek and dishonest display of enthusiasm, as I just did not care about what, to me, were the ramblings of a conspiracy nut. He said his piece, and left it at that. Since then, over the years I did my own research, listened to many speakers, witnessed many events, investigated data and religious scripture... and changed my mind.
My gut instinct, to you, is me using my head. Me using my head is, to you, a gut instinct. Food for thought.
I would have thought beheadings, stonings, crucifixions, rapes and massacres are infinitely more alienating to a moral human being than war casualties.
But I guess that's my gut talking.
Do tell how the West's actions are worse than the above. I'm all ears.
"Oh most of them are fighting other Muslims? I guess that means that it has absolutely nothing to do with their religion *throws hands up in the air*"
Really it doesn't because it is forbidden in the Quran to kill innocents or other Muslims where there is no caliphate to deem it so.
"You attack your enemy in as vile a way as possible. Your enemy reacts and, ideally, carries out worse atrocities. Are we carrying out atrocities worse than ISIS?"
How do you measure this? By the degree of violence or the insanity of it. What part of war is humane? Do beheadings rate higher than killing children with a bomb while they sleep?
"Since then, over the years I did my own research, listened to many speakers, witnessed many events, investigated data and religious scripture... and changed my mind."
Then you obviously missed the part where a Caliphate needs to be in charge of Jihadist and the attacks we are seeing operate outside of the practitioners of the faith. Use your head. Muslims are very devout and regimented in their actions and beliefs. If this were truly a Jihad we would be over run by the millions who practice the faith and not this small percentage of criminal lunatics.
"I would have thought beheadings, stonings, crucifixions, rapes and massacres are infinitely more alienating to a moral human being than war casualties."
How did the German people rise up and defeat a vicious dictator such as Hitler or Mussolini?" How do you defeat a dictator when he controls every square inch and every thought of his country?
"Do tell how the West's actions are worse than the above. I'm all ears."
You have been told and all of your studies you claim to have done should have informed you of it. I am sorry but all of your ears are shut by what your gut is telling you.
"Really it doesn't because it is forbidden in the Quran to kill innocents or other Muslims where there is no caliphate to deem it so."
In our last conversation your thesis was "Religion is and always will be about interpretation". Now here you are singing to the tune of "it's explicitly forbidden in the Qur'an to kill innocents or other Muslims without a caliphate". In other words, you are now claiming that there is an undeniably accurate interpretation of certain texts (my original position!), when you had spent the better part of a month arguing otherwise.
It's hard to take you seriously with such blatant flip-flopping.
A reminder: you previously stated that most Muslims are ignorant of their own religion. If it takes such in depth study to realize that there needs to be a genuine caliphate in order for Muslims to kill innocents or other Muslims then I don't really blame them for skipping the whole "you require a caliphate" part, or for not verifying whether ISIS is a genuine caliphate.
I am curious though; what are the requirements for declaring a caliphate?
"How do you measure this? By the degree of violence or the insanity of it. What part of war is humane? Do beheadings rate higher than killing children with a bomb while they sleep?"
You should be asking Will, he is the one making the claim.
I'm sure beheadings are morally equatable to missing bomb targets in your world. In my opinion, dying in my sleep instantly is better than helplessly getting my head cut off, but what do I know? Gut thinking and all that.
"If this were truly a Jihad we would be over run by the millions who practice the faith and not this small percentage of criminal lunatics."
Let me get this straight: you admit of a possibility for Islam to engage in an actual Jihad... but still think "pretend" Jihads have nothing to do with the religion.
Hilarious, absolutely hilarious.
Most Muslims don't know their own religion that well, remember? What makes you think they will be capable of distinguishing actual Jihads from pretend ones?
"How did the German people rise up and defeat a vicious dictator such as Hitler or Mussolini?" How do you defeat a dictator when he controls every square inch and every thought of his country?"
Well, the Allies defeated Nazi Germany by going to war with them, not by sitting on couches tweeting #NotAllGermans or some other such nonsense.
"You have been told and all of your studies you claim to have done should have informed you of it. I am sorry but all of your ears are shut by what your gut is telling you."
Translation: I don't feel like providing evidence for my claims so I'm going to insult you for not reaching my pre-made conclusion.
That's okay. I don't mind being informed by my gut if it's smarter than your brain.
"In our last conversation your thesis was "Religion is and always will be about interpretation". Now here you are singing to the tune of "it's explicitly forbidden in the Qur'an to kill innocents or other Muslims without a caliphate". In other words, you are now claiming that there is an undeniably accurate interpretation of certain texts (my original position!), when you had spent the better part of a month arguing otherwise."
Gobblety gook as far as I can tell from your arguments of Muslims in general. You ask for proof and then scoff at it when presented by your interpretation of the conversation.
"It's hard to take you seriously with such blatant flip-flopping."
Ditto my man. The problem is your gut is your source. Good proof.
"I am curious though; what are the requirements for declaring a caliphate?"
Didn't you glean this from your extensive readings and study of history or is this proof you are winging it again from your "gut". Look it up it may surprise you. Here's a hint it was what split the Muslim faith.
"You should be asking Will, he is the one making the claim."
I don't have to. He has a lot more understanding than a bigoted opinion has to offer.
"I'm sure beheadings are morally equatable to missing bomb targets in your world. In my opinion, dying in my sleep instantly is better than helplessly getting my head cut off, but what do I know? Gut thinking and all that."
Typical, avoid the comparison and then refer to your gut. You are a gem of information.
"Let me get this straight: you admit of a possibility for Islam to engage in an actual Jihad... but still think "pretend" Jihads have nothing to do with the religion."
I think you put the bigotry away for a minute and got a glimmer of what is being discussed here. There is no pretentiousness here but is that how you read it?
"Hilarious, absolutely hilarious."
Sorry I was wrong. You twisted it up as usual.
"Most Muslims don't know their own religion that well, remember? What makes you think they will be capable of distinguishing actual Jihads from pretend ones?"
As stated before look at the numbers my man. If it were real most would believe and follow the Caliph. But guess what there isn't one.
"Well, the Allies defeated Nazi Germany by going to war with them, not by sitting on couches tweeting #NotAllGermans or some other such nonsense."
Same twisted BS
"Translation: I don't feel like providing evidence for my claims so I'm going to insult you for not reaching my pre-made conclusion."
Now we get to the meat of the issue. You have no proof or understanding at all of the situation. As I thought all bluster and no substance.
"That's okay. I don't mind being informed by my gut if it's smarter than your brain."
"Gobblety gook as far as I can tell from your arguments of Muslims in general. You ask for proof and then scoff at it when presented by your interpretation of the conversation."
What the hell does that even have to do with my point? You have two clearly contradictory positions: one is saying "religion is and always will be about interpretation". The other is saying "ISIS' interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with this religion".
Reconcile those positions and maybe you'll begin to sound coherent.
"Ditto my man. The problem is your gut is your source. Good proof."
The only person who thinks my gut is still a source is you. With no proof, might I add. At least you're helping me meet my daily dose of irony.
"Didn't you glean this from your extensive readings and study of history or is this proof you are winging it again from your "gut". Look it up it may surprise you. Here's a hint it was what split the Muslim faith."
I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm asking for *your* interpretation of caliphate requirements. As you're already aware, historical and present-day Muslims do not agree in regards to the requirements for forming a caliphate (as well as a great many other things). In light of that, I am curious to what you think the actual requirements are not just for my own edification, but so others may bask in your wisdom of the Islamic arts.
It's a great opportunity, you could be clearing up a great source of confusion for Muslims. They've been trying to unravel these issues for 1400 years. I'm sure you're the missing key.
"I don't have to. He has a lot more understanding than a bigoted opinion has to offer."
Labeling any contrarian opinions as "bigoted" because they don't agree with your preconceived worldview is, ironically, bigoted. You'd do well in an Orwellian world.
How did I avoid the comparison? I specifically said beheadings are worse than getting blown up in my sleep, in my humble, gut-like opinion. I know textual interpretation is not your forte, but do try to keep up.
(By the way, I am saying gut-like opinion facetiously, as are any other references to me using my gut for thought. I know you have difficulty interpreting text, so I thought I'd spell that out for you. You're welcome.)
If you're still having trouble thinking about who acts more humane than the other, consider this thought experiment: would you rather be at the mercy of the West, or ISIS?
"As stated before look at the numbers my man. If it were real most would believe and follow the Caliph. But guess what there isn't one."
I grow tired of your red herring. The fact that ISIS not a 'real' caliphate (which I never disputed or claimed) somehow proves that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Am I getting that right?
Likewise the Ottoman Empire was arguably not a 'real' caliphate so it also had nothing to do with Islam. According to your logic.
"Same twisted BS"
Sorry, let me go down to your level of argumentation.
Um, I know you are, but what am I?
"Now we get to the meat of the issue. You have no proof or understanding at all of the situation. As I thought all bluster and no substance."
Feel free to educate my gut. It's hungry for something other than garbage though, so you may need to use a few more neurons than you're used to. Don't hurt yourself.
I think you would be far better off thinking about a practical solution to the problem of ISIS than pursuing an anti-muslim agenda.
Islamophobia is meat and drink to ISIS. They want the world to split into 'us and them'. They want to milk the hatred and chaos.
Tell me, what do you think of the following:
Stoning people to death for adultery
Death for apostasy
Punishment for breaking the Sabbath
If you disagree, I'll have to consider you an anti-Muslim, by definition.
It goes without saying that absolutely nowhere in my earlier post did I say anything about an anti-Muslim agenda unless you think being anti-ISIS = anti-Muslim, but then again, you people will see what you want to see.
You should get a snorkel because you are drowning in your own crap.
Move on my friend you are in way over your head.
I do love playground-style dismissals. It's almost like you have nothing of substance to say.
Being silent in these matters will cost lives. Which is why I will choose not to be. In fact, I encourage you not to be silent either. Keep talking. The natural marketplace of ideas will sort them out eventually.
Amen almighty, I was raised a Christian, saw how satanism has corrupted christmas, correlated that to islam and how satanist have corrupted Judaism as well- askenazi Jews are satabic (Revelations 3:9) urge you to read this
How about David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco? Is Christianity an evil religion because of their zealot leader? What about Jim Jones and the followers in Jonestown? Were the followers zealots or victims? Does someone or a group of people who do a criminal act have the right to call it religious? If they do is it correct or just the twisted thinking that they justify their criminal actions? If we believe them we feed into their insanity by condemning the rest of those who choose to peacefully practice their faith.
David Koresh and Jim Jones did not, to my knowledge, send adherents out into civilian populations who did not bear the same religion in order to murder them while they listened to music and sat peacefully in cafes.
Were the two mad men? I would say yes.
Were their followers delusional? Apparently so.
Can they be compared to those who perpetrated the attacks on Paris? Hardly.
You like to split hairs I see. No matter. Your assumption that the two groups did not seek out innocent individuals as does ISIS is rather narrow. Jim Jones was enslaving others to follow his drug induced insanity of heaven by holding hostage and eventually killing those in his charge. A senator and news crew were killed when they left the compound along with defecting members. With Koresh he was buying up arms and molesting children in his insanity to spread his lunacy based on a violent sect know as the Branch Davidians. My point was that Islam is not the basis for the violence perpetrated on others anymore than Christianity. In our zeal to retaliate we feel we have to go to our baser element of our humanity by demonizing a whole religion rather than the perpetrators and their sick twisted violent crimes once again making one wonder if we have been recruited in their insanity as a manipulation. As David Koresh and Jim Jones used the Christian faith to twist the minds of others in their zeal against governmental intervention in their crimes so does ISIS use the Quran and Islam to gain control over the weak to wage war for power.
We've already been over this, rhamson. You're quite content in thinking that a literal interpretation of their text is not the most honest interpretation, and you'll continue to jump through mental hoops to satisfy your "anything can be interpreted into anything" truism.
When I showed you a prominent, well-educated Islamic leader in the UK advocating for Sharia law, you said he's simply one man. When I showed you a Muslim peace conference in Norway where hundreds, if not thousands unanimously admitted to believing in what the West calls "radical ideas*", after making it very clear they were not radical Muslims, you (if I recall correctly) became silent.
If you can demonstrate that Koresh and Jones believed in X and X is advocated in the Bible, then you may have a case that the Bible advocates for X. Vaguely referring to these individuals hardly demonstrates this. Furthermore, if the best you can come up with is 1 or 2 incidents then I would hardly say that it is conclusive evidence of a casual relationship.
On the other hand, here is a list of terrorist incidents and their relevant ideologies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b … st_attacks
Out of 376 incidents, 261 of them are due to Jihadism. 70% of terrorist incidents. I don't see any other religion in that list, except for "Sihk Extremism". I hope even you will realize that the statement "Islam is not the basis for the violence perpetrated on others anymore than Sikhism" is highly disconnected from reality.
I never condemned any Muslim who chooses to ignore the vile teachings of Islam. Peaceful* Muslims are good human beings, but poor Muslims in the sense that they do not actually follow Islamic scripture.
*I define peaceful as not holding these radical ideas that the average Muslim in that Norway conference holds. These include segregation of the genders, women as second class citizens and men as cannon fodder in wars, and punishments by Allah and his messenger e.g. death and stoning for adultery. Based on pew polls in Muslim countries, a significant % of Muslims hold such beliefs. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … -overview/
Once again you give scripture where it is not warranted and then blame the Muslim masses for the sins of a few. If all Muslims believed as you say then we would be in an international war with terrorism and war running in our streets. You can't prove any of what your saying with other than a bigoted perspective of your beliefs. Yea the Quran says a lot of nasty war related things but it is under certain rules and conditions. What you fail to understand is that ISIS is trying to create the Caliphate by which all of Islam will be united. The masses of peaceful Muslims reject this attempt of their Caliphate and you cannot distinguish between the two. So you beat the war drum and the ignorance of bigotry in an effort to confuse the issues because you are afraid of the truth which would what? Make you wrong? You give links that only prove that Muslims want their culture and religion to remain intact in their country and less than half of those interviewed wanted Sharia Law where secular courts ruled. Not as comprehensive as you think is it? Is it that you think because someone wants something they will so easily be accommodated? Don't be ridiculous.
You're right, it's completely unwarranted to cite scripture of "killing infidels" when Muslim fundamentalists are...killing infidels.
When did I blame the Muslim masses for the sins of a few? I stated a significant % of Muslims do not hold peaceful beliefs based on poll results. Contrary to your dismissal, less than half wanting Sharia law can still be significant. 10% is still significant. That's the number of the low end in the polls.
"If all Muslims" there's your problem. I never said "all" Muslims. Your perception of reality is skewed to see "a significant % of Muslims believe in X" = "all Muslims believe in X".
I cannot cure your ailment with discussion, you'll see whatever you want to see and continuously straw-man relatively straightforward statements. As we've already done this little dance once before I think I'll pass this time around.
"I cannot cure your ailment with discussion, you'll see whatever you want to see and continuously straw-man relatively straightforward statements. As we've already done this little dance once before I think I'll pass this time around."
I will agree with this with same back at you. The trouble is bigotry breeds contempt. Thanks for your contribution to it.
It is a shame that attacks on people keep happening out of the blue. My heart goes out to the families involved in the terror attack.
I am grieving with everyone worldwide who is grieving because of the horrific attacks on people in Paris. I do not mean to be insensitive at all but instead of praying for the survivors in Paris, some people are praying for Paris Hilton. #prayforparis
Its so sad that so many people online are so out of touch on Twitter.
How can that happen?
I am following this and glad many are commenting. But what happened to Paris Hilton. Someone explain. Thanks
ISIS, Quadafi, Sadam Hussein, Hezbollah and the PLO etc. are our fault. Our policies and actions while meddling in the region is on us. We wanted to establish our money on petro dollars and back a brutal monarchy in the process that has done nothing to promote our "goodwill" in the region. Osama bin Laden came from this country as did most of the 911 attackers. We re-installed the Shah by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran. We backed the Zionists take over of the Palestinians land which is now Israel. We installed the dictator Sadam Hussein in a territory where he gassed his own citizens. Americans roll through history conveniently forgetting their own hand in the messes we create and then want to claim innocence while railing against those we have criminally acted on. How nice it is that we now take the moral high ground while condemning those who retaliate against us. It is now visiting us where we live as we visited them with our "good" intentions.
After all these years you still do not know that bin Laden was a Saudi? Not that his nationality matters. It was his so called religion that remains the problem.
When Mahayana Buddhism - the Dalai Lama's lineage - have a teaching that says there can only be peace when islam has been wiped from the face of the earth, you know you have pi$$ed off a lot of people!
Either you do not know what a petro dollar is or missed my refrence to Saudi Arabia with it as I spoke of Bin Laden but it was in my text. You wish to condemn a religion while millions practice it in total peace. Hate is an amazing thing. It takes logic and throws it out the window. It does not matter which side of the fence you stand on.
So, if a dirty bomb goes off in your town I guess you'll just chalk it up to karma. I don't think I could.
I think our primary problem is that we attempt to understand the why of barbaric acts from our own perspective. We are looking for rational reasons for terror because, growing up in a free, peaceful and secular society, it is impossible for our minds to follow the trains of thought that perpetrate these acts. It's a mistake we need to stop making.
What was your response to 911? Did you wish to retaliate? How do you think they feel about the overthrow of their country? Or their land? How about a drone killing your family? If you want to look at it your way you will wallow in ignorance and hate. What a waste of time and effort. We will only escalate this is what you offer is a poor choice.
If you are attempting to imply that what happened in France was justified I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears here.
I will take the wise advice I learned in the Bible. "Cast not thy pearls upon the swine". Or a more recent iteration of that saying. You can't teach a pig to sing, all it does is frustrate yourself and piss off the pig.
Aw gee. Nothing to add of value so you do the standard religious thing and insult indirectly. How original. Good think you are a Christian radical. If you were a Muslim radical you might do something more direct. Like, I don't know, bomb Paris?
Are you sure you understood the post? I thought it addressed your deduction rather well.
What leads you to believe I did not understand your post?
LtL said that any attempts at rationalizing what happened in France as justified retaliation would fall on deaf ears, including her own, presumably because it is so repugnant a thought that all it can merit is scornful dismissal.
You then said that you will not cast your pearls (attempted justifications) upon the swine (those who disagree with you), not realizing that LtL is among those who would reject your pearls. In other words, you unwittingly called her a swine for rejecting your implications.
At least that is what I deduced from this conversation. I could be wrong.
You are wrong as usual. What Live to Learn responded to was my post about how terrorism escalates.
"What was your response to 911? Did you wish to retaliate? How do you think they feel about the overthrow of their country? Or their land? How about a drone killing your family? If you want to look at it your way you will wallow in ignorance and hate. What a waste of time and effort. We will only escalate this is what you offer is a poor choice." rhamson
The point was missed entirely by you and Live to Learn. That is the reason for my responses to your answers and questions.
I don't mind being wrong, especially in the realm of communication. It's a two-way street, after all; the communicator needs to make his message clear, and the recipient needs to be willing to listen.
I'm aware LtL responded to your above post. In that response she states "If you are attempting to imply that what happened in France was justified I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears here."
This to me is an invitation from LtL for you to clarify your position, the key word being "if" as it expresses doubt regarding a potential set of outcomes. If you are implying X, then you should make that clear so it may fall on deaf ears. If you are not implying X, then you should clarify what your position actually is so we can move forward in the discussion.
I suppose you could opt for not clarifying anything at all and keeping us in the dark, but then you should not be surprised if people keep "missing your point".
I should mention that copying and pasting your message verbatim without any additional input (other than attacking us for supposedly missing the point) does not somehow convey your message any more clearly, especially when you are seemingly employing run-ons like "We will only escalate this is what you offer is a poor choice".
Sorry you don't like my style. NOT! It was clear enough and muddy enough for the misinterpretation that biased reading will produce. You do back pedaling almost as well as you do misinterpretation.
That's up to you. You've made up your mind about our supposed bigotry yet you refuse to demonstrate how we're actually bigots. Anyone witnessing this conversation from a neutral perspective would find you foolish.
At least I hope this gives at least some people perspective on how easy it is to misinterpret language, even when you have the luxuries of time, thought and civil discourse, on a medium with both the editing tools and the original author available. When you take those things away and you attempt to communicate tribal thoughts written on 1400 year old parchment, sometimes passed down by word of mouth, you'll get even more misinterpretation.
As Richard Dawkins said, "To say ISIS distort their religion presupposes that there's something to distort. Something agreed, established, "correct". But who decides?"
I'm not sure how I could have possibly backpedaled since I haven't remotely changed my position on anything you've said. I'd ask for clarification but I'll respect your style of not providing evidence for your statements. It looks good on you.
I will say you have a twisty winding way through your bigotry to come out smelling like a rose. You are a legend in your own mind my friend. I am glad you can judge your objectivity from that perspective. If you did not notice you have only re-enforced what I pointed out. You love these word games and as you pointed out it is done at your leisure as you condemn a religion for that which your gut deciphers. When cornered you attack at credibility while demanding others to explain what you don't know and again twist that. You are a masterful adversary with nothing to add. My guess is you are a really good chess player. It's a shame you allow your gut to drive your knowledge and anger.
I can't quite decide if I should feel annoyed, flattered or disappointed. I've never seen such a mix of contempt, adulation and projection in one piece. I can only assume you are either a troll, delusional or are suffering from a mild aneurysm.
I did warn you about using too many neurons, didn't I?
One only need look at your avatar name to know what you are.
Lol rhamson, do you want to tell me what you think my avatar name is or should I save you from your ignorance?
Hint: it's not the police.
I don't know where you grew up or what generation you are in but it means it is an A$$.
I don't have anything in common with the followers of a murderous pedophile. If you must know, I am an atheist. I am too old for imaginary friends.
Group hugs will not cure acts of terrorism people , Many Americans , and certainly other nations don't want to even admit that there's a world wide war of terrorism . A subculture , even in America , of people grown soft on punishment . Growing weak on even declaring acts of terror- actual terrorism !
" Close Gitmo " ! Ya , right , .... I ask when will Americans wake up and allow a world declaration of war on terror ? Without suffering an epidemic or plague of being soft on punishing these terrorist?
I say the more drone strikes the better !
What happened in France is horrific and barbaric. But, those posters who are implying that targeting innocent French civilians is somehow acceptable, due to French foreign policy, is about as heinous.
I think pretty much everyone would like to see ISIS destroyed, especially the refugees forced to flee in front of their assaults, mostly Muslims.
The fact is that flawed US, UK (and, to a lesser extent, French foreign policy) allowed ISIS to come into being. Ultimately, that is where to lay the blame.
I disagree. Yes, there were flawed policy decisions by the West. But, ISIS is not the first terrorist group to ravage parts of the region and unfortunately I think we can all agree it won't be the last.
There is a bigger problem in that region than flawed policy decisions by the West and, considering the vast reserves of money they have to fall back on to procure weapons of all kinds we cannot ignore them.
Terrorist groups like ISIS need failed states and the West served up a couple. Very hard to fix now.
Oh. All it takes is a failed state. Oddly, there are more terrorists groups out there who weren't the result of failed states. How do you explain those away. Again, the fault of the West?
ISIS controls huge swathes of territory, has state-like reserves of money and is more than just a source of concern for local governments.
Anyway, the West has learned something. As I said in another post, Blair, George Bush Sr and Jeb Bush all recently acknowledged, in varying ways, that the Iraq War was a poor choice, poorly executed and had a very poor outcome.
Let's hope no one forgets and, instead, decides to allow countries to follow their own path (even if we disprove of their governments).
Sure, why not. Let governments be held accountable to no standards of humane behavior toward their citizens. By your statement we should avoid any intervention at any point, anywhere in the world.
As I said previously. The West does make mistakes. As does any government. Citizens in the West are very willing to attempt to find the part of responsibility we bear in the process. Unfortunately, when all other parties refuse to do likewise we are left with terrorists creating carnage and potential recruits using our words as corroborating evidence to the hate mongerers who would convince them to take innocent lives through terror and mayhem. So, the cycle continues.
There is no excuse for wanton violence.
I would check out European and American history if you want violence. We are in no position to preach.
Our countries were fortunate to have histories uninterrupted by colonization or invasion. We visit that on others.
But you seem just as anxious to absolve the West, why so? Do you not think that the Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not the impetus of a disaster. When you stick your nose in the affairs of others, there are going to be consequences.
As Iraq was not involved in 9/11, why did we attack there, with the tremendous waste of lives and money all because Bush get us all unduly entagled in international intrigue?
I always marvel at the people who say about 911 that they attacked us for no reason. Many said it and it is a testament to their knowledge of US foreign policy over the years. It has happened time and time again. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Our educational system does such a bad job of teaching history and the kids are all too willing to oblige them by not learning it.
We haven't been discussing the 2003 invasion. No, I did not support Bush's actions in Iraq. I didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan.
I am not attempting to absolve the West as much as insisting on holding those responsible for mayhem responsible. I find it ridiculous that we attempt to rationalize terror. Are we not simply allowing it to continue by doing so?
The West was wrong in invading Iraq, so ISIS is justified in bombing civilians in France? By this logic we can assume that France is then justified in attacking Pakistan, which will give Pakistan justification to attack Canada, who will then be justified in attacking some other country, and on and on and on.
The West has not, to my knowledge, chosen to bomb civilian populations for the sole purpose of creating terror among the populace. Someone suggested that targeting civilians is OK for ISIS to do since they don't own a standing army. Another foolish idea. I assume that logic comes from talk that Americans fought guerrilla style in order to beat the British here in the US. Again, not the same thing.
Now, we may all be world citizens, but you are opening up a can of worms in believing that exporting terrorism is an acceptable manner in which to point out you are pissed off about something. Anyone who supports terrorists acts by attempting to rationalize the 'right' of them is simply feeding terror. You are giving cause for those who are drawn to it just one more reason to think it will be OK.
World citizens should, in my opinion, respect each other to the point that we are honest in our assessment of actions such as these. I don't think anyone is a barbarian so much as that they have committed barbarous acts and those who planned and/or coordinated the attacks, those who took part in the attacks should be held to the same accountability we would hold our own neighbor. Nation states who support such ideology as the exportation of terror should be held accountable.
If you have a problem with conventional warfare, then you are like me. But, conventional warfare and terrorism are two different animals and should be treated as such.
Blair, and the Bushes have acknowledged what I've always said. But, as I've already stated. Attempting to find justification for what happened in France through failed Western policy is just like saying it is our fault they are beheading captives, enslaving women and blowing up architectural treasures. We didn't find justification for the actions of the terrorist in South Carolina who killed all of those people in a church. WE didn't attempt to find fault with ourselves because of his actions. We called him what he was. Making excuses for terrorists is, in my opinion, ignorant.
Fortunately, the Syrian Peace Talks seem to be offering a way forward which does not involve killing every Muslim or forcible conversion (to whatever).
I ain't learning anything here so I won't be back.
How you got 'killing every Muslim or forcible conversion' from my stand that terrorists are just that and it isn't our fault is a mystery. You shouldn't come back. You aren't offering any sensible discussion.
The French President said on national TV that the attacks were by the Illuminati (Free Masons). I can believe that the elites funded the attacks and used radical Islamic terrorists (ISIS) to carry it out. So, now Paris will be on lock down with the borders secured after the attacks and there will be increased security surveillance with totally control of the city for the upcoming “Paris Climate Summit”. I think "anything" could happen between November 30 to December 11.
Obama admits he is "training ISIS". Aw, that means ISIS is us?
Keyword Search "who created ISIS".
Can I have $1 worth of whatever it is you are on?
Hollande was talking about the Charlie Hebdo attacks and didn't say that exactly: "c'est terroristes, ces illuminés, ces fanatiques...". "Illuminé" is often used in French satirically, coming from pure fiction.
Just to share, islam is not the problem. The problem is imperialism and psychopath from Washington and Britain who fund Isis
I'm going to interject a link to an interview with political author Gearoid O Colmain after the attack in Paris. I learned more in 10 minutes from him than I would listening to US Fake News for the next 10 years. France does whatever imperialistic Washington says according to this guy.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11 … acks-paris
http://fox6now.com/2015/11/16/president … e-of-evil/
Should Obama do more or should US continue to be cautious and limited in involvement with ISIS?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … story.html
Some say this is why the terrorists took action. In retaliation.
The "west " is responsible for butcher knives that slice of heads on sandy beaches ! Responsible for subway bombings of grandma's ! Completely responsible for drowning babies on beaches too , Don't forget the dragging of human bodies down a paved road until there is no flesh on the victim , of course .
What about a suicide bomb strapped around a young mother ? Is that my fault too . I'm American after all ?
Someone needs a reality check , or at least a drug intervention .
It's called 'they get spoon fed their ideas and don't bother to think through the logic of them'. They also think since they give up their right to think for themselves, only an idiot would not follow suit. Heck, they picked up pearls, for gosh sakes, from these people they are giving up their rights to.
Yes my friend the west is responsible for much of this phenomena. Gore Vidal once stated "we are the United States of Amnesia" and the late Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai put it more lightly quipping "one of the delightful things about Americans is they have absolutely no historical memory". Americas' foreign policies have sucked while chasing an oligarchic imperialism with our politics, the CIA and our military especially since the end of WWII. 
"In addition to Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Dominican Republic, South Vietnam, Brazil, and Chile, the U.S. also had a hand overthrowing the governments of Hawaii in 1893, Cuba in 1898, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq." 
The truth is that we can't handle the truth as Jack Nicholson so eloquently stated. When we are told the facts we point the finger all over the globe for blame or at the very least trash the messenger of the information. Americans like things their own way and are not willing to take into consideration anybody else's rights or privileges in the process. We meddle in others affairs and especially when it stands in the way of our corporate bought Congress we come down on them like a sledge hammer.
Flame me if you must but until you look up the history and the facts of our actions in the past and only "believe" that we are on the right side of this without the facts, I hope it gnaws at you just a little bit until your conscience tells you to learn the truth..
 http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_crea … n_the_80s/
 http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/08/21/how- … verthrown/
Many comments in that Salon article are more illuminating than the article itself. Not surprising given the current calibre of that site.
Here are a few raising interesting questions:
1) "If Islamic terrorism is the Muslim way of fighting or resisting America's imperialism, why do most acts of Islamic terrorism target other Muslims?"
2) "We exported far more violence to Latin America, and for far longer time. Why was there never a problem with Latin American terrorism?"
3) For the sake of argument let's say the West is largely responsible for *Islamic* extremism...
"What do you propose we do about the current ISIS problem? Just leave them there to do what they want...beheadings, destroying ancient artifacts, wanton destruction?"
1) "If Islamic terrorism is the Muslim way of fighting or resisting America's imperialism, why do most acts of Islamic terrorism target other Muslims?"
Ah you hit the nail right on the head my friend. If it is to be considered "Islamic" at all why does it go against the tenets of the religion.
2) "We exported far more violence to Latin America, and for far longer time. Why was there never a problem with Latin American terrorism?"
Because we have drug cartels that run those countries. Why would they war on the people who buy their product? It would just be bad business.
3) For the sake of argument let's say the West is largely responsible for *Islamic* extremism...
"What do you propose we do about the current ISIS problem? Just leave them there to do what they want...beheadings, destroying ancient artifacts, wanton destruction?"
It is theirs to do with as they wish so let them have at it. If the people there want to leave or fight it is their decision. We are not the police of the world.
1) I'll lay your worry to rest: let's assume it's not Islamic for the sake of argument.
Now that that's settled, how about we (and by we, I mean you) try to answer the original question?
Remember: your claim is that this phenomena, namely terrorism by ISIS or other related groups, is a result of Western intervention. So why are they attacking other Muslims more than Western people?
2) You mean like how your Salon article claims the West created Islamic extremism? Why would they war on the people who created their extremism? It would just be bad for extremism business.
I remain skeptical of your claim. Latin America - all of the relevant countries - came to the singular conclusion that instead of terrorizing Western countries (namely, America) for their interventionist actions, they were going to be satisfied with their participation in the drug cartel, something America has been fighting against for decades?
I'll need a citation on that.
3) So your solution is... do absolutely nothing?
To elaborate on the question, what would you do about border control, immigration policies, integration problems in Muslim communities and the fact that a significant number of Muslims joining ISIS are European-raised? And what about the 75% of Muslims - the innocent majority - who are going to be left at the hands of these psychopaths? Leave them to join ISIS or die?
"Remember: your claim is that this phenomena, namely terrorism by ISIS or other related groups, is a result of Western intervention. So why are they attacking other Muslims more than Western people?"
I take it you did not read the article in its' entirety or try to refute it with further investigation. This is a criminal action to gain control of the region and establish either a dictatorship or theocratic government. Muslims happen to occupy the area and how else better to terrorize someone than to threaten to kill them, get them to run away or join them? Russia tried to overthrow the socialist government in Afghanistan and failed leaving a huge void where the Taliban, Al Qaeda and others filled in after we helped them rid themselves of the USSR. Read the article!
"2) You mean like how your Salon article claims the West created Islamic extremism? Why would they war on the people who created their extremism? It would just be bad for extremism business."
As I said the extremism is a method to control the area. Why would they want us there? We get in the way of their conquest. Besides the warring tribes you have the Sunni and Shite who have been warring since the passing of Muhammad. The Balfour Agreement set this up in the early 1900's when they made a secular split of the area. I have talked with a few Iraqi's and their want is for the west to leave their homeland. Precisely what Bin Laden wanted. They want us to leave period.
"I remain skeptical of your claim. Latin America - all of the relevant countries - came to the singular conclusion that instead of terrorizing Western countries (namely, America) for their interventionist actions, they were going to be satisfied with their participation in the drug cartel, something America has been fighting against for decades?
I'll need a citation on that."
Do it yourself. I am not here to teach or persuade you either way. Use your computer. I will just leave you with this on the topic. Why is the war on drugs and unabated import of heroin, cocaine and marijuana such a dismal failure to control?
"3) So your solution is... do absolutely nothing?"
Nothing there. I would secure our borders and institute a plane and airport program much like Israel does. Close down the open ports we have and export as many illegal immigrants as I can. Anybody here illegally is far more susceptible to compromising actions by their mere presence in the country illegally.
"To elaborate on the question, what would you do about border control, immigration policies, integration problems in Muslim communities and the fact that a significant number of Muslims joining ISIS are European-raised? And what about the 75% of Muslims - the innocent majority - who are going to be left at the hands of these psychopaths? Leave them to join ISIS or die?"
If they won't fix their own country why would we want our children, husbands and fathers over there protecting and fighting for a country they won't defend? The Iraqi army is a joke and they shoot their rifle once and give it to the enemy. I have no stomach for that type of protection to make up for their cowardice.
The terrorists are mad at us for supporting Israel who has taken Palestinian land.
If we support Israel, our ally, we support the taking of land from Palestine. This may be at the core of the issue as far as what is angering ISIS.
If we did not back Israel, we, US et al, might be cut some slack, perhaps.
I read that somewhere.
ISIS: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, IPA /ˈaɪsəl/), alternatively translated the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS, /ˈaɪsɨs/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_S … the_Levant
The terrorists are primarily mad at us (the western world) for showing the world a lifestyle that is impossible to achieve with their barbaric belief system, and the people want it. This will inevitably lead to a decrease in their power base and that is the single biggest problem.
- many, (on the left) say we need to work with ISIS and agree to stop supporting Israel
… and that this is the only way to avert WW3.
Actually, this was the lesson I had to present to sixth graders the other day in a classroom I subbed for.
They had to choose a side:
A. War to obliterate terrorism.
B. Negotiate to appease terrorists.
This was quite a topic for 11 and 12 year olds to contemplate and write about!
Many chose war, but I did remind / inform them that
W A R is h o r r i b l e .
It is quite a dilemma, if you ask me.
I do not believe it was beneficial on any level whatsoever for the teacher to introduce this topic to sixth grade students. Once, I almost got fired for not presenting a lesson revealing slave treatment on slave ships to third graders. I couldn't even bear it.
How could they?
I think it has gone way beyond that as Bin Laden was mad that the US was in Saudi Arabia and encamped near holy cities. Our occupation of these countries maddens them but what are we to do? Our finances are oh so tied to Saudi Arabia we have very little motivation to clean the mess up. Israel is an apartheid state that constantly grows larger and displaces more and more Palestinians as we speak. Our unshakable support of Israel keeps us in their cross hairs. This is where we are and I am not too sure even if we could clean up our act they still would not attack us.
Thank you, rhamson.
If this is the case what do you think we should do. Appease or destroy?
~ or what is the bigger picture?
What should we be teaching our young students?
Kathryn I don't know that anything different can happen. Instead of getting to the root of the problem we are politicizing religious doctrine with hate mongering as a side dish. Our (US) foreign policies have blundered this in favor of frenemies who keep us at arms length with veiled support, Saudi Arabia and Turkey for example. We are fighting the religious wars they no longer want to participate in since the fall and break up of the Ottoman empire. We (the American Electorate) are morons to believe that Congress and the President want to do anything substantial to fix any of this as their decisions are to either appease and negotiate or all out war to end it once and for all. We want a quick and easy fix as is our societal preference for everything American. In their eyes we are not to be trusted as we have invaded or overthrown their governments over the years so "we" cannot "fix" it.
You ask what we can teach our students? A thirst for knowledge and the truth or at least the latest version of it. As they learn more about the US and other countries and their actions and policies, they will at least get a working knowledge that will not be spoon fed them by the politicians or the press.
I believe that mankind does not do the right thing until we are dragged through the fire and on the brink of destruction before any significant change can happen. These world wars have been going on for centuries as societies clash with each other. I hope the precipice we ascend to is not to steep that we cannot come back down.
I guess war is inevitable, when you look at the whole picture.
But, not with this president.
… so it escalates.
Terrorists are formed in childhood. It is child abuse.
This child abuse must stop.
How can we prevent the IGNORANCE of TRUTH and the INDOCTRINATION of LIES?
FLOOD THE WORLD WITH TRUTH!
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:59AM GMTAt least 35 people have been killed and dozens of others wounded in a missile attack by two US assassination drones in southern Somalia, Press TV reports.The casualties come after an unmanned...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
The Obama administration had been advancing the narrative that terrorists are on the retreat and terrorism on the decline, even labeling the Fort Hood massacre not an act of terrorism but a work place...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
I hate that term, but didn't quite know how to phrase it better.Obviously, there have been a LOT of incidents and investigations in the last fewmonths that have raised terrorists and US security to new levels of...
by ahorseback4 years ago
Apparently , our very president doesn't even like the word , My opinion is that terrorism and the War against it especially , are going to be around for a long ,long time ! What would make anyone think...
by ahorseback2 years ago
The Obama administration's defense strategists have just stated , as many as 25%,and as little as 18% of released terrorist suspects have returned to the trade ! ...
by KU372 years ago
I apologize if this is not the right place to post this kind of message. I have written a short article which you can link to at http://igibud.com/hebdo/ It's called "I am Charlie Hebdo". It...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.